User talk:Bicycles to India

Ridiculous
This is fucking ridiculous. You idiots haven't even got the integrity to let Jimbo know that you're second guessing his stated wishes and randomly blocking people who've been talking on his page for days while he was completely aware of the nature of the account. You utter idiots. What a total collective power trip. You know full well I can create more socks, and I'll be using them to post at his page unless or until he says he's had enough of the discussion. You as simpleton block button pushers have got no power over me in this matter; had you done your research into what's been going on, you would have realise that by now. But you haven't, so obviously you don't. I only requested an unblock here to see if any of you had the sense you were born with and weren't about to repeat the mistakes made with the original account, which despite the constant lies being told over there about consensus, very much has a proper claim of legitimate use. But as we see, blocking is apparently the only way that these claims can be maintained in the public eye. COI much? Fucking brain dead self-serving automatons the lot of you. Four days clear use on Jimbo's page is not "regardless", it's beyond bloody significant as far as any sense of 'block on sight' logic goes for this account, but it's precisely because you think in this way, rather than the way a normal person would, that your collective wisdom fails to rise above the clue levels of even the most efficient government department. Total fuckwits. "Regardless.....block evading socks are to be blocked". No shit Sherlock. Did you honestly think I didn't know that? Are you trying to make it more than obvious that you haven't been following what this has been all about? That you aren't really aware as to why this account was created? Have a listen to yourself. Would you even get a shelf stacking job while displaying this amount of nuanced intelligence to your task? Not bloody likely, and thank fucking God for that. Malik Peters (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk Page Usage
Talk pages may not be used for suggesting edits while blocked. Blocked means no editing, by any means. The use of a talk page when blocked is to discuss unblocking. Further attempts to edit will mean access to this page will be blocked as well.  Ron h jones (Talk) 20:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you a-holes? Now I've got yet another automaton on my case. Are any of you actually capable of independent thought? Or have you all signed a contract when you were given your bits, to turn into clueless robots, who can only follow the simplest of policy instructions. Socks are to be blocked always. Talk pages of blocked users cannot request edits. You must not write on the walls. Fucking hell, YOU LOT WOULD TURN THE MOST MILD MANNERED PERSON INTO A CRAZED COP KILLER IF HE EVER MET THE LIKES OF YOU IN THE REAL WORD, IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAD TO ACTUALLY MAKE ANY REAL WORLD DECISIONS THAT HAD REAL WORLD CONSEQUENCES. Go and tell Jimbo why that discussion has stopped mid-flow, that's all I ask. LET HIM DECIDE WHETHER A DISCUSSION HE SAID WAS OK TO CONTINUE ON HIS OWN TALK PAGE, CAN ACTUALLY CONTINUE WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM BLUNDERING HAM FISTED ADMINS LIKE THE ABOVE. That's the only edit I am 'requesting'. Anyone would think that you guys actually want me to keep creating socks? Maybe that's the way your minds work. Maybe your so short of work in the admin department, you have to do your best to create the conditions in which violations are inevitable. I cannot think of any other way to explain the stupidity that has been displayed over this issue. Malik Peters (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To "Malik Peters": I am also shocked that this username was blocked without realizing that a dialog about the problems with "excessive sock-blocking" was being discussed on Jimbo's talk-page, at his request. I think many people can understand the righteous indignation that you are expressing in your messages, and the quick responses from admins are more proof that the standard-operating-procedure replies are to "punish the user" regardless of the mental anguish being inflicted and observed in replies. Fine, so using the intense language did not cause the admins to reverse their actions, and hence, posting harsh responses will not be effective to move forward. Meanwhile, I was hoping someone as intelligent as yourself could help improve the policies and admin button-pushing practices to avoid these problems in the future. It is plainly wrong of them to treat someone such as yourself in this manner, or to similarly treat a Member of Parliament, or U.S. Congressman, foreign diplomat, famous celebrity, or in fact any cooperative user who has clearly stated the intent of the alternative account (numerous times). I hope this continued blocking of accounts will not totally demoralize you, and perhaps some methods can be found to improve the sock-blocking policies and admin practices. Perhaps you could contact other anonymous users to join in the discussion, not as "WP:Meat_puppets" but as people who shared your views without being controlled by your direction, and thus not appearing as "Malik Peters" in the discussions. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Your ability to edit this talk page has also been revoked. If you would like to be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact the Arbitration Committee at . The Bushranger One ping only 20:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)